How's Bill doing at the Senate?

Doubling down on the bullshit, I see.    I also see he plays air accordian like Trump.

And Lindsey Graham is here to help.

This is Barr while Dianne Feinstein is talking:

No, it doesn't.  It says:

It also asks to have a introduction and executive summary for each volume, which he provided that are "in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies" provided to Congress and released to the public.  That's when Barr told the world he didn't think it would be good to release the report "piecemeal".



Here's Mueller's letter in full.

In the letter, Mueller revealed that he pressed Barr to make elements of his report public on March 25 — a day after he finalized his report — and urged him to do so again. But Barr ultimately determined to keep the report secret for nearly a month, reviewing it for several categories of information to redact — and he made no indication to Congress or the public that Mueller disagreed with his handling of the report.

[...]

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr repeatedly questioned Mueller's investigation, suggesting he wasn't sure why the special counsel investigated numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice if he decided he couldn't charge President Donald Trump with a crime under Justice Department restrictions.

  Politico

The rest of us know, and I'm sure the House will ask him that very question when he testifies. He did it so Congress would have a complete outline and head start on the evidence when they do their duty of investigating (and impeaching) Trump, and so that when he gets out of office, the information will not be impossible to retrace and recollect, in case somebody wants to charge him then. And how does his not understanding why Mueller did it make it okay for him to mislead Congress and the American people about what Mueller found?

"If [Mueller] had found" enough evidence for an obstruction charge, I think he would state it," Barr said.

But Barr's answers directly contradict the rationale Mueller laid out in his report. Mueller indicated in a legal analysis of obstruction of justice that "fairness" dictated he not reach a formal judgment on whether the president obstructed justice — regardless of the evidence. Because the Justice Department prohibits indicting a sitting president, Mueller noted, suggesting Trump committed obstruction would unfairly taint his presidency and leave him with no legal recourse to clear his name.

Similarly, Mueller indicated that he pursued obstruction allegations against Trump, despite his inability to charge him, because presidents may be indicted after leaving office.

So, pretty much, he did find evidence. He recorded it. If he didn't believe it were evidence, why would he record it?

Barr has to know Mueller is going to contradict his bullshit, publicly one day. He's setting himself up for that day.

The news of Mueller’s letter echoing some Democrats' concerns has led them to demand expedited public testimony from the special counsel — a senior House Democratic aide said they hope to hear from him by next week, though they initially had sought his testimony by May 23.

McGahn's testimony is pretty much show, since he already told Mueller everything, and it's in the report - or, they can ask Mueller about it, because there's no executive privilege available for Mueller's testimony.

They're on recess now for a few more minutes.  I'm not watching.



Bingo, Liz.


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.